|
Knight posted:I think animals just spontaneously boil to death or catch fire quite often. How do you think forest fires start? It's just a sad fact of nature. Spontaneous boiling should be a new urban legend. "He was as red as a cooked lobster, but was found completely dry!"
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
wyoming posted:Spontaneous boiling should be a new urban legend. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHJdr0lpoC4
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:I was at Craters of the Moon (which is cool and everyone should go) and they've got signs up that're warnings about how friable the rock is. What that actually means is that all the edges are one tourist away from collapse. In 3rd grade my family went there and I managed to drop a lava rock on my pinky finger which then needed 9 stitches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
why isn't he wearing a banana suit
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
quote:Santilli chimed in that he expected that when Donald Trump becomes president, he'll intervene in the case on the defendants' behalf. Source
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Yeah but what the gently caress would he know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
That's extremely unlikely, though I'd admit nothing seems shocking these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
I didn't think it was likely - just funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
It beginsquote:Bundy brothers refuse to attend US court hearing in Vegas edit: drat, shoulda clicked the link.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
I give him better than even odds of being right. Trump could pardon all of them early next year and nobody would give a gently caress at all by the time the next elections roll around. It all depends on if one of Trump's handlers cares about the case enough to put the paper in front of Trump to sign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Trump isn't going to need the militias, and even though they're nominally on his side he has zero reason to support them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Also, he doesn't want to have to deal with them doing more poo poo like that on his watch. Which they will, because they're spoiled little children and when trump doesn't personally grant them a ranch on half dome they'll be back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
#OccupyTheTower when Trump fails to dissolve the Bureau of Land Management and the other BLM
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
tbh do we really even need a federal government anymore?? im gettin in to this states rights and anarchist thing now and it makes a lot of sense
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/oregon-standoff-malheur-second-trial/
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
quote:“In my view, it defies logic that they could profess respect for the jury’s verdict in the first trial, and yet still be pursuing charges, and indeed more charges, against the lesser players in the second trial,” said Jesse Merrithew, the attorney for defendant Jake Ryan. "They already acquitted some people, they should just cancel all the trials!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/oregon-standoff-malheur-second-trial/ quote:The upcoming trial against Ryan, Jason Patrick, Duane Ehmer, Dylan Anderson, Sean Anderson, Sandy Anderson, and Darryl Thorn could also see the government charging several Class B misdemeanors, including trespassing, tampering with vehicles and equipment and destruction of property. Huh, so the feds were able to charge on smaller things like trespassing. I wonder why they didn't in the first trial? Maybe they were worried if misdemeanors were available the jury would be more likely to convict on those and acquit on the 'big' stuff? LOL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Mariana Horchata posted:tbh do we really even need a federal government anymore?? im gettin in to this states rights and anarchist thing now and it makes a lot of sense Lowercase means joke posting, but actual care post inbound. Ideally, yes, people ought to be left alone and rely on their own decency and judgement fit most things. State governments are also theoretically more capable of making decisions that benefit their citizens efficiently and representatively. In reality, we've found people in our country will fight to subjugate SOMEONE, anyone, and smaller governments will consistently poo poo in their own backyards for momentary gains, will defend the worst behaviors of their constituents, and intentionally sabotage their neighbor states. This is a contributing factor for the civil war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Facebook Aunt posted:Huh, so the feds were able to charge on smaller things like trespassing. I wonder why they didn't in the first trial? Maybe they were worried if misdemeanors were available the jury would be more likely to convict on those and acquit on the 'big' stuff? LOL. Correct, it came up on an early episode of the OPB podcast with a federal prosecutor, they tend to push for big charges on big cases so that juries aren't tempted to waffle in the deliberation room. Did anything new happen with that shithead juror who ruined everything?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Correct, it came up on an early episode of the OPB podcast with a federal prosecutor, they tend to push for big charges on big cases so that juries aren't tempted to waffle in the deliberation room. Last I heard some local papers filed a motion to have the jurors identities revealed. He'll undoubtedly speak up about the new trials being unjust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
U.S. marshals explain why they grabbed Ammon Bundy's lawyer From last month, but I didn’t see it posted here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:U.S. marshals explain why they grabbed Ammon Bundy's lawyer Yeah, the big scary 5'6" lawyer was sure gonna assault the US Marshall. Yes, the attorney was making noises, that is what they do. As a former defense attorney (who now works for the big evil government telling law enforcement how to follow the law), the whole thing is pretty disgusting (I also very briefly did prosecution). I don't agree with the verdicts and yeah, the defense attorney was a bit over the top arguing, but that is what defense attorneys do. The way that is supposed to go down is: Defense attorney: *Arguing* Judge: Denied [probably should stop here] Defense attorney: *loud yelling* Judge: Denied. *Contempt threat* [In 99.9% of cases should shut up here] Defense attorney: *more yelling* Judge: Finds in contempt, maybe arrest* They never got to that contempt threat, which really should be the trigger to STFU and back down. Grabbing an attorney who is addressing the court (even as an rear end in a top hat) without the judge telling them to just isn't done, ever. Bailiffs and marshals should never be telling a defense attorney to stop addressing the court unless the court has stepped off the bench or asked the staff to do so. Based on the accounts I've read (and the lack of mention of any court direction at all), this didn't happen. Attorney was arguing, cop told him to stop, attorney rightfully ignored him, cop grabbed him, and maybe the attorney acted shocked? BFD. These guys are trying to avoid the lawsuit or even just embarrassment that comes from taking down an attorney in a courtroom. They overreacted. Edit: Pro-tip -- When the cop is actually writes that based on his "experience as a combat veteran" he did something, you better buckle up because you're going for one hell of a cool, but way played up, ride. Edit2: I forgot. As mentioned in the article, every single media source reports that the judge ordered the marshals away from the attorney. They disregarded that order. If any bailiffs in a courtroom I frequented disobeyed a direct order, they'd be in a world of poo poo. nm has issued a correction as of 08:46 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
experience as a combat veteran is useful in a shootout but if you're applying it to law enforcement among a civilian populace you're probably a douche
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
quote:
I'm generally skeptical of arresting at attorney in the middle of an argument, but those are pre-assaultive indicators under FLETC curriculum. Even 5'6" guys don't get to square off with cops while they are attempting to take someone into custody. I would hope you are not suggesting to federal law enforcement officers they have to wait to get punched in the face or something before employing control tactics. It's also not entirely clear that the district of Oregon has the power to interfere with the detention of a defendant under a detention order in a matter before the district of Nevada. All that said, it would have been better to accomplish this without arresting Mumford. If he was in the way, a better first resort likely would have been to push him out of the way. Not because that's actually the correct thing to do when someone interferes with an arrest, but because it would have avoided a bad scene. If he actually squared off and raised his fists I really don't have any sympathy for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm generally skeptical of arresting at attorney in the middle of an argument, but those are pre-assaultive indicators under FLETC curriculum. Even 5'6" guys don't get to square off with cops while they are attempting to take someone into custody. I would hope you are not suggesting to federal law enforcement officers they have to wait to get punched in the face or something before employing control tactics. It's also not entirely clear that the district of Oregon has the power to interfere with the detention of a defendant under a detention order in a matter before the district of Nevada. According to the accounts in the room, they slowly surrounded him and then tackled and tased him. Considering the disparity in force, a taser was incredibly unnecessary. poo poo, even more than one cop arresting him was probably unnecessary unless the untrained 5'6 attorney in a suit somehow was capable of overpowering a US Marshal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I'm generally skeptical of arresting at attorney in the middle of an argument, but those are pre-assaultive indicators under FLETC curriculum. Even 5'6" guys don't get to square off with cops while they are attempting to take someone into custody. I would hope you are not suggesting to federal law enforcement officers they have to wait to get punched in the face or something before employing control tactics. It's also not entirely clear that the district of Oregon has the power to interfere with the detention of a defendant under a detention order in a matter before the district of Nevada. Given that it lines up with no media reports of the incident (including ignoring tackling and tasing him) and the fact that it is basically passive voice cop bullshit, I'm about 90% sure it is all bullshit. There is no way in gently caress an attorney squares up with the bailiff in a courtroom. Additionally, the judge is ordering the officers away from him as they move in based on every media report, which is complete bullshit. This was an indefendable use of excessive force and will just serve to distract people from the actual crimes the bundys committed. I hope the US Attorney is smart enough to get rid of this at the first hearing. I have read literally hundreds of resisting police reports. The bullshit ones all sound like that, where they focus more of training and perceptions of actions. The real ones are much more detailed. If this was my case in with a good DA, we'd mock the cop together. nm has issued a correction as of 16:47 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
How does a Marshall even have a job after refusing a direct order from a judge? Can she trust those Marshalls from carrying out her orders and protecting her after such a blatant disregard for her orders? hobbesmaster has issued a correction as of 17:29 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:experience as a combat veteran is useful in a shootout but if you're applying it to law enforcement among a civilian populace you're probably a douche IMO, experience in combat should automatically disqualify you from law-enforcemnet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:IMO, experience in combat should automatically disqualify you from law-enforcemnet. Yeah this might happen: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...n-unloaded-gun/ quote:After responding to a report of a domestic incident on May 6 in Weirton, W.Va., then-Weirton police officer Stephen Mader found himself confronting an armed man. nm has issued a correction as of 17:44 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
yeah combat experience like that is useful saying a defense attorney prompted you to tase him in a court room over the judges objections based on combat experience, that's bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
The media reports from the day of the arrest are not as cut and dry as you're making them out to be. Some say he raised his arm at the marshals as they approached and resisted them once they grabbed him, which are consistent with the report. Mumford himself said after he was released that he demanded papers from the marshals as they approached his client. Did he actually square off like a boxer? I don't know, and neither does anyone here. If he was getting in the way of Bundy being taken back into custody, then it was appropriate to remove him from the scene. If he resisted being removed, then what is your suggestion? Just say "oh, gosh, this is a 5'6" attorney, I guess rules don't apply to him"? They also say that Judge Brown had stated the Oregon court no longer had any authority over Mumford and he had a detainer with the district of Nevada which he needed to take up with that court. You keep fixating on Brown telling the marshals to back up, but I am not sure she has the authority to dictate the time and manner of Bundy being taken into custody to face charges in a different district. His business before the district of oregon was concluded. He had no bail for a pending matter in Nevada. The marshals had the authority, and obligation, to take him. I know you think all law enforcement are lying all the time because you were a defense attorney, but the report is not really inconsistent with what was contemporaneously reported.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Combat experience is fine. Combat experience being used as an excuse to justify lovely behaviour is not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
If his combat experience accurately informs his assessment of when someone is about to take a swing at him, it's not irrelevant. It's not like he wrote 'based on my experience as a combat veteran, I hosed down the courtroom with automatic weapons fire.'
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
^^^^^ It's a laughable statement because this is an unarmed licensed attorney ina courtroom in Portland, OR, not loving Fallujah. Even if you did, you don't actually write that. You just say "training and experence" and save the puffery for court. That's just an attempt to boost a weak rear end report with a bit of "I was a soldier." Kazak_Hstan posted:The media reports from the day of the arrest are not as cut and dry as you're making them out to be. Some say he raised his arm at the marshals as they approached and resisted them once they grabbed him, which are consistent with the report. Mumford himself said after he was released that he demanded papers from the marshals as they approached his client. Did he actually square off like a boxer? I don't know, and neither does anyone here. If he was getting in the way of Bundy being taken back into custody, then it was appropriate to remove him from the scene. If he resisted being removed, then what is your suggestion? Just say "oh, gosh, this is a 5'6" attorney, I guess rules don't apply to him"? B: the marshals were closing in on the attorney, who was still speaking to the court, and the judge told them to back off. Also, yes, 100% the judge has the authority to tell them to not take the defendant into custody just yet. Here is what is going on: The defense attorney is making his record. This is one of the key parts of beinga defense attorney, because it gives you basis to appeal. Even if you aren't going to appeal, you to it because it is what you do (not a geico ad -- you never know what might be judged iac or wish you had later). Yes, the judge wants him to shut up and even tells him she's made her ruling, which is tell him to keep it short because you're not going to win. Attorney keeps arguing. The marshals move in because they think it is over. The judge says back off because she knows this is just standard stuff. She also knows that stopping an attorney from making his record is a great way to lose an appeal you should never ever appeal. This should have been the clue. Court was still going on. You don't take the defendant out without court going on. However, while that police report pays lipservice to the idea that he was blockibg the removal of bundy, that isn't really what it say. He was being loud, the bailiff told him to be quiet, he did not, bailiff put hands on him. That sequence was wrong. The bailiff doesn't get to tell an attorney to stop argument. A judge does (and generally they shouldn't because it is often reversable error). The order was not a legal order. And then putting hands on an attorney for arguing? Are you kidding me? These guys completely hosed up and the police report is a barely concieled "please don't sue us." nm has issued a correction as of 18:20 on Dec 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Oh hey, Dylann Roof was convicted. Kinda shocked, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
I don't disagree with the main thrust of what you're saying, and I would be fine with the charge being tossed, but I think people are being a little bit over the top about a borderline case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:I don't disagree with the main thrust of what you're saying, and I would be fine with the charge being tossed, but I think people are being a little bit over the top about a borderline case. A defense attorney being tackled and tased in the courtroom, particularly a federal courtroom, never happens so it's a particularly shocking even, so I'm a bit shocked and outraged. I think most defense attorneys could see being in this position at some point, though I wouldn't have picked this particular hill to die on. I am 99% sure this happens in family court on the regular, but those crazy fuckers literally get involved in fist fights in court. Criminal court, particularly federal court, should be a much more civilized place where it is assumed the defense attorney won't fight you and try to break his client out like some bad action movie. OAquinas posted:Oh hey, Dylann Roof was convicted. Kinda shocked, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:If his combat experience accurately informs his assessment of when someone is about to take a swing at him, it's not irrelevant. It's not like he wrote 'based on my experience as a combat veteran, I hosed down the courtroom with automatic weapons fire.' fortunately assault doesn't work that way I can't just deck someone and fall back on "well, I thought he might punch me, maybe", I'd go to jail and rightly so
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:17 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:fortunately assault doesn't work that way Well, you can, but your fear has to be reasonable, which it wasn't here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 19:48
|
|